There's Cav.......
Ever hungry, always food on the brain. How are you fixed on the subject of hunger vs. fate, Cav?
I forgot to add a thank you to Deb for this thread. Interesting topic.
Well, Lola, I was just trying to be punny, but yes, food on the brain all the time. 'Tis indeed my job. I do believe that 'hunger' forges the vision, but can often cloud it along the way. I don't believe in fate.
To clarify, I believe that certain occurences are beyond our control, but I do not believe they are pre-destined.
I think I agree with you, cav. We'll see. I'm willing to be convinced otherwise. (but not very.)
Cav, have you read the essay by Francis Bacon Tomato and Lettuce on Wry?
Hmm - Shakespeare certainly does not come down on the side of fate - from memory, the comments are roughly equal: Like (from memory - so mistakes likely):
As flies to wanton boys are we to the gods - they kill us for their sport.
vs Edmund's:
"S'foot! I would have been that I am had the maidenliest star in the firmanent twinkled upon my bastardizing!
My reading would rather be that Lear's arrogance and poor judgement sets the machinery of tragedy going - enabling the forces of evil ascendency - (until the usual rather arbitrary order-re-imposing forces enter at the end...) - not fate - with the sub-plot folk meeting a fate also set in motion by their actions - like Gloucester's adultery coming home to roost.
Certainly, chaos and absurdity occupy most of the play - but with a significant theme of (?) christian-like transcendence (through love and self-knowledge) of the forces of fate and chaos which have been unleashed - (in the internal world of the characters, not the external world.) This theme seems to offer more than the poise and guts of stoicism can...
I was going to say the themes are very relevant in this age of chaos and terror - but all ages are full of chaos and terror - we just like to ignore it, when we can.
What was that about wonton boys and the foot of god? S'orry, Setanta's making me laugh too hard to post a proper response
Okay....back from laughing....I completely agree with the bunny. I think the strength of Shakespeare is his portrayal of the human condition as self-perpetuating, not predestined, and Lear to me, sums it up better than most of the other plays. That's my two cents for now.
Oops, I forgot...I also believe that the theme of love and self-knowledge as redemptive, although framed in a Christian model (well, that makes sense, given the time) is still universal. The 'stoicism' aspect was nicely portrayed in 'Ran', and insanity shown as it's opposite, completely faithful to Lear and Shakespeare, but in a different setting, language, and an interesting twist on the story: three sons, not daughters, which would be typical for medieval Japan. Brilliant flick....
Only saw it once - and I believe I was very stoned indeed - must see it again before I can comment...
I would have thought that the medieval form of Japanese Kirosawa used in the script would have been more comprehensible in that state....my brother is fluent in modern Japanese, but even he needed the subtitles when he watched the film. He doesn't smoke pot though...
Set aside an afternoon...I think it's about 3 hours long.
Yes, love and self knowledge, an idea associated with Christian thought given the times. But the Christian use of polarities (love vs. hate, right vs. wrong) as the basis for understanding the human condition is no longer consistent with current knowledge and not as helpful, I would even say harmful, now. If a person is striving for understanding, recognizing the realities of basic human drives (sex -- including love and aggression) of the individual within a social group, leading to conflict is a better more inclusive model these days. The plot line in Lear seems to lock people into a trap they can't escape because of the concepts of "past sins" like G's adultery and his bastard child. The tragedy in the play is the result of the character's inability to accept themselves in their ambivalence toward each other. It's a frustrating and unsatisfying conclusion for me.
The tragedy in the play is the result of the character's inability to accept themselves in their ambivalence toward each other. It's a frustrating and unsatisfying conclusion for me.
How is this so, Lola?
Set
'Much more likely'? And we know exactly what regarding Shakespeare's education, associations, and personal library? Personally, I think it only slightly more likely than Bacon's presence on the grassy knoll. But authorship doesn't really matter here anyway...the play is the thing.
Deb
The only troublesome part of the play for me is the beginning scene which sets everything in motion - Lear's behavior is somewhat inexplicable, most particularly in his reaction to Cordelia's response. But it does serve to demonstrate aspects of Lear and his three daughters (and Kent) which are of key importance in the play.
I think you are right about the enabling of chaos, and that has clear precedents in greek tragedy (Oedipus's acts are what have brought on the famine and pestilence). But more broadly, this is a very common notion for humans in all cultural/religious world views - if something goes wrong in the world, somebody is responsible, some one has done something they weren't supposed to do, and some violation of cosmic order and propriety has occured (as an aside...I'd guess this is hard-wired in us, and it makes some functional sense in terms of social interactions. But when a rock tumbles from a mountain and crushes our shoulder, we find ourselves casting about for why we deserved it, and casting about to locate some intention behind the event - this is a possible reason why we personalize and anthropomorphize the universe).
But that notion, that there is a cosmic order which violated brings disaster is clearly part of this play, and it was a deep and fundamental notion in Christian thought at the time. And another intrinsically related idea here is that the cosmic order is reflected in both the order of the state and the order of the family. Violations of order here are violations of the cosmic order (another quick aside...this is a wonderful example of how religious notions serve to reinforce and support existing social power structures). Goneril, Regan and Edmund violate their loyalties and duties to their fathers, while Edward and Cordelia do not. Kent remains loyal to his King, while Burgundy and Corwall do not. Lear violates his own kingship by quitting it.
Once chaos is unleashed, and slowly builds, is where the fun starts, for me. You mention the christian-like transcendence. Stampfer argues as follows...Lear ought to win in the end, but he doesn't. He ought to win because he is stripped of absolutely everything - his kingdom, his soldiers, his clothes, the loyalty of his daughters, his one true love in the world, Cordelia, he is finally stripped of everything including his own sanity. In the Christian notion of things, this constitutes penance, and he's done penance perhaps moreso even than Job. So he ought to be forgiven in the end.
But the end brings a return to order (with France and Cordelia conquering the nasty four) and reunion with the only thing that gives the universe meaning to Lear, Cordelia. But it then adds a soldier, who was sent on a mission much earlier in the play, who has somehow gotten waylaid or delayed and doesn't know of the changes, and he carries through with his assignment and kills Cordelia. Chance? Toying gods? Imbecile universe? There is no benevolence here, it seems. Surely this is what makes that ending so unbearable.
My earlier comment on Stocism, Lola, relates to this scene where Lear hold Cordelia, unable to deny the truth of this death, and unable to accept it. The Stoic story is that suffering makes us stronger, builds our character ("life hands her lemons and she makes lemonade"). Imagine your child dead in your arms, and someone touching you on the shoulder and whispering "One day, you'll see you are a better person for this." That is insufficient.
But the Christ narrative - God sacrificing his own son, and Christ actually feeling all of the suffering down to the most tragic part of each of us - is far richer and reaches far more deeply than the sort of Dale Carnegie level of Stoicism.
Hi Deb,
It seems that the characters each represent a portion of a one person's internal life and none represent all. Together they all make one complete human being. We all love and hate, lust as an adult, and wish to be treated as a child (autonomy and independent sexual identity vs. dependency needs), love and wish to kill those we love and hate. Actually, it occurs to me that the play can be seen as a representation of the internal struggle taking place inside all of us at any given time. It seems if we are more tolerant (less punitive) of those wishes we associate with fears of loss and destruction, we are better able to understand ourselves and behave in ways that get us all more of what we want. For instance, if many of Shakespeare's characters would stop for a few minutes before killing themselves, they might be surprised by what they find. (as in Romeo and Juliet, for instance.)
blatham, to me, the beginning of the play can be explained by Lear's later descent into madness....his strange decisions regarding his estate, and his reaction to Cordelia's response could be construed as the early stages of his insanity. As for Stoic and Christ narrative....I might replace "Stoic" with "Story of Job", also a far-reaching tale.
People do say the stupidest things in times of tragedy, Blatham. I agree. Image at this same point if someone came to you and said, "she'll be waiting for you in heaven with God, and we have to understand this as God's will." This is an equally unsatisfying and destructive thing to say, although people who say things like this are probably as well intentioned as the rest of us, just not very sensitive. A time of loss is simply miserably painful and a person, in my opinion should be left alone with the memory of the loved one for a while. But, if you can remove it from this moment in which we all want to deny reality, it's actually true that experience (and loss is a part of human experience) is the stuff that character is made of. It's certainly not a sufficient comfort in the face of tragedy. Suicide, however, which is Lear's choice, in my opinion is hardly the answer either. Actually, it's the same solution Lear chooses at the beginning of the play. He responds to his intense disappointment with Cordelia by disowning her. A self-destructive act if there ever was one. And it's actually the act that set the entire scenario into motion. Actually, however, this decision to give up his position of power as king could be seen in the same light. Lear's choices are poor, even though he seems to be trying to protect himself from loss, he actually causes it to happen.
